Wikinews talk:Briefs/January 15, 2009

Live internet video feed as source

I don't see how this Ramattan feed can be considered a reliable source. --SVTCobra 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And why not? It is live from the Strip. How can it not be anymore reliable? What might be the reason(s) for your concern? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no way to verify what was seen in the feed (it's live). If it had been saved so that others could play it back, then it'd be OK. How can we be sure what is we are looking at anyway? I clicked on the link and saw some kind of night-time cityscape. How can I know that it is Gaza? The url doesn't reveal many hints. --SVTCobra 01:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

One. Ramattan is a news agency based in Gaza. Since it is on satellite, it is picked up by other Arabic/Middle Eastern news agencies and put on the Internet. CNN carries it sometimes (but not right now). And if the explosions are not a hint...Pluse the link is a temporary IP link the netowrk, CH 2 buys when they have sponsorship of the Ramattan feed. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Israeli station carrying Ramattan as listed in the source: http://www.reshet.tv/ DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any explosions and I certainly can't see the activity that happened several hours ago. Anyway, I refuse to review the article with this in it. It doesn't even seem important to the short in which it is mentioned. However, the rest of the stuff is ripe for publishing. Therefore, I am going to remove it and publish. If you add it back, be clear to mention that it was after my review.. It seems that someone else reviewed it. Oh, well, as long as my creditability wasn't on the line, I guess it is ok. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah because I will intentionally add misinformation... </sarcasm>DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen, the whole point of Flagged Revisions and getting listed on Google News, etc, is that we don't just place implicit trust in each other. We are supposed to try to have credible editorial controls. I know your history ... and you know I know ... so don't try to make it out to look like I am trying to undermine you. --SVTCobra 02:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Live videos have exactly the same problems that other types of unsourcable OR have: they are inherently unverifiable. Eventually we're going to have to come up with a system where we verify what OR can be verified, and we only allow users that are trusted by the community to post unverifiable OR, such as stories based on unrecoverable (unrecorded) live feeds. I guess that this is probably what accreditation is suppose to be for? Gopher65_talk 02:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Gopher, we do have systems for that (although they can be improved). Original reports are supposed come with notes and/or something like an audio/video recording of an interview. If notes are too sensitive or reveal too much, then they can be e-mailed to Scoop which is only accredited reporters (I am not one). --SVTCobra 02:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Review

Revision 752286 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 752286 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.